stephen_speicher Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 The term "Unconditional" is a contradiction. Nothing is unconditional. There is always a condition when considering a term: the definition. A is A. I might think that an appropriate definition for the word “unconditional” would be: nothing exists. "The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional ..." (John Galt) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KleineAngst Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 "The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional ..." (John Galt) Thanks Stephen. It's refreshing to be wrong. Gives me something to accomplish. Thanks again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KleineAngst Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Thanks Stephen. It's refreshing to be wrong. Gives me something to accomplish. Thanks again wait wait wait... perhaps then something can only be "unconditional" or "absolute" in the physical relm? Because whether or not it is a "moral" standard... when you enter into the metaphysical relm.. you always apply standards.. there is always the question... "by what standard?" At which point whatever standards you apply, then become the root condition? Then you get into the whole standards talk... but is it true to say that an absolute can only exist in physics? not metephysics?... metephysics requires a set of standards.. conditions........ I apologize... everyone.. i'm so lost. This is rare for me, but.. boes anyone know what I am talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowzer Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 I apologize... everyone.. i'm so lost. This is rare for me, but.. boes anyone know what I am talking about? Perhaps reading Galt's words will help you to put this issue into perspective? The section that that quote comes from is on page 931 and it has been the subject of some debates here as of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 wait wait wait... perhaps then something can only be "unconditional" or "absolute" in the physical relm? Because whether or not it is a "moral" standard... when you enter into the metaphysical relm.. you always apply standards.. there is always the question... "by what standard?" At which point whatever standards you apply, then become the root condition? Then you get into the whole standards talk... but is it true to say that an absolute can only exist in physics? not metephysics?... metephysics requires a set of standards.. conditions........ Perhaps this quote from OPAR (p. 361) will be helpful: "In truth, rights are earthly and absolute at the same time, because their source is neither God nor the group, but reality; reality, plus the choice to remain in it." So rights are absolute in the sense that reality dictates individual rights as that which is possessed by every man by virtue of his birth, yet they are conditional in the sense that if you violate another's rights you can lose your own. The issue here is one of context. If principles are objective, moral or otherwise, they are just as absolute as physical existence. Just keep the context in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KleineAngst Posted October 2, 2004 Report Share Posted October 2, 2004 Perhaps reading Galt's words will help you to put this issue into perspective? The section that that quote comes from is on page 931 and it has been the subject of some debates here as of late. I think I understand. Thanks for your help. 4:30 in the morning isn't a good time to have at philosphy I've decided. When I re-read the things I've said, I tend to laugh. I love myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.